G.R. Nos. 134531-32. July 7, 2004.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PERLITO TONYACAO, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Perlito Tonyacao was charged with two counts of qualified rape against his 16-year-old stepdaughter, Genelita Tonyacao, occurring on November 25, 1995, in Talalora, Samar. The informations alleged that he used a jungle bolo and intimidation to have carnal knowledge of the victim against her will. Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty. The trial court nonetheless required the prosecution to present evidence. Genelita testified that at noon, while gathering coconuts, appellant poked a bolo at her neck, threatened to kill her and her family, struck her, and then raped her. He repeated the act that same evening inside their home, again brandishing the bolo and issuing threats. The victim did not immediately report the incidents due to fear, only disclosing them to her mother three weeks later after appellant himself revealed his acts during a quarrel. Medical examination confirmed old hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse.
The defense presented only appellant, who claimed a consensual love affair with Genelita, alleging the sexual encounters on November 25 were mutual. He asserted the relationship began in July 1994 and that Genelita initiated intercourse. The trial court rejected this defense, convicted appellant of two counts of qualified rape, and imposed the death penalty for each count, prompting automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of two counts of qualified rape based on his guilty plea and the evidence presented, notwithstanding his claim of a consensual affair.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The guilty plea, entered with assistance of counsel and with appellant acknowledging the possible death penalty, was valid. However, in capital offenses, the court must still require proof beyond reasonable doubt to ensure the plea was made intelligently and to ascertain the precise degree of culpability. The prosecution successfully discharged this burden. Genelita’s detailed, candid, and consistent testimony on the forcible sexual acts and the threats with a bolo was credible and constituted clear proof of rape. Her failure to report immediately was satisfactorily explained by her genuine fear of appellant, her stepfather, who lived with them and repeatedly threatened her life and her family’s.
The Court found appellant’s claim of a consensual affair utterly implausible and a mere fabrication to escape liability. It defied belief and human experience for a young victim to invent a story of rape against a family member, subjecting herself to public scrutiny and trauma. The medical findings corroborated her claim of penetration. The qualifying circumstance of relationship (stepfather-stepdaughter) and the use of a deadly weapon were duly proven, warranting a conviction for qualified rape. However, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua for each count, as the informations did not specifically allege the victim’s minority (below 18 years) as a qualifying circumstance, though relationship was sufficiently alleged and proven.